Reading the comments thread of my essay “The Movie-Going Public” gave me the same feeling I had riding Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride at Disney World as a kid. This is so bizarre yet exciting, with all these surprising twists and turns. I can’t figure out where I’m being taken and I can’t stop laughing. It would resemble a classic Monty Python sketch if it weren’t so sad.

Because when a deeper discussion I hope to spark fizzles into surreal insanity I take that way more personally than any personal attack. The entire point of my penning the piece was to use myself as a jumping off point, to prompt readers into thinking about their own individual lives in order to foster a meaningful discussion about what it means to be an audience member. Instead, that conversation ended when the focus shifted exclusively to me. And the tragedy is that my particular life isn’t minutely as interesting as the larger picture. It’s disappointing that seven dirty little words referencing sex—in my estimation the least interesting thing about me—out of an entire heartfelt essay could derail the whole critical thinking process.

I guess now would be a good time to state what I thought was the obvious. “The Movie-Going Public” was written from the POV of a movie-goer—in other words, I took off my film critic hat. It is a personal essay, not a film review. However, judging by the comments section you would have thought I’d stuck a flippant reference to casual sex in my actual review of Traitor—which not only would have been inappropriate, but downright Monty Python loony. I happen to be a genderqueer chick, a gay guy inside my female form (which is old hat as I’ve written about it extensively), and tossing off a campy-toned comment about an afternoon tryst isn’t bragging if sex is on par with going to the gym. That’s just how a flamboyant homo like me talks. I’m perfectly capable of cleaning up my language when critiquing a film—I don’t “talk gay” any more than Armond White “talks black.” I understand this requirement because, for as long as I can remember, I’ve been muting myself for the sake of the comfort of others. But a personal essay is my sacred ground. And it hurts to censor myself in this context. (On this note I ask anyone still offended to please express your outrage in the comments section of “Taking The Bite Out of Sex.”)

I understand that my experiences are not the same as yours, that I live on the fringe, not in the center. But since we all go to movies, we’re all part of the collective movie-going public. And however different our viewpoints, what we all have in common is that we bring our individualized ways of seeing with us to the theater whether we’re always aware of this or not. And because we all bring something, we all deserve to take something away as well, an experience not provided by the abundance of films that selfishly and lazily preach to the lowest common denominator when they could aim to do what Shakespeare did—speak to the general public with artistry cloaked in plainspoken language, not with condescension (which happens to be royal critic Roger Ebert’s secret weapon as well). Filmmakers need to stop viewing audiences in linear terms, to start widening the net, embracing an umbrella approach, thinking in the language of prisms so peasants and kings get fed together.

So how on earth can this revolution happen? Contrary to the opinion of some commenters, filmmakers have to actually care what others (beyond “test audiences”) think—enough to genuinely listen and to be open to having their viewpoints challenged. To take an extreme example, The Living Theatre has been around since the forties, engaging numerous viewpoints on all different levels because its founder, Judith Malina, is passionate about her audiences, is humbled by their taking the time out of their busy lives to listen to her message. Not once in all my years working with the company did I ever get the sense that Judith valued her friend Allen Ginsberg’s opinion more than that of John, the old black homeless guy who looked after our space on Avenue C during the day (and I’d dare say the same about Allen). I’d also venture to guess she would have been thrilled if J. Edgar Hoover, who had an F.B.I. file on her a mile long, had come to see a show and offered his viewpoint, rather than trying to bully her into silence. I just don’t get the sense that Jeffrey Nachmanoff, the director of Traitor, really gives a shit what little ole movie-going me thinks as long as I cough up my eleven bucks. But I’ll bet Roger Ebert cares what I think about his own review.

Secondly, filmmakers have to be curious enough to engage with the world outside film so that they speak several sociological “languages” fluently. We need to stop talking about “audiences who don’t care to be challenged” when it’s the filmmakers themselves who don’t care to be challenged. To use another “fringe” example, I get geeky about S&M, boxing, theater, film, and certain genres of music just about equally, and whenever I enter each of these cliques I try to cross-pollinate a bit, try to find common ground (which obviously backfires from time to time). The reason film is a universal medium is because it’s an amalgam of all “languages” (i.e., life experiences). A good many filmmakers have lost sight of this, which is why so many movies speak only the language of LCD. As another astute commenter noted, The Godfather is both box office gold and a cinephile’s paradise. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Coppola can speak wine as well as film.

But of course all these points could have been bandied about in the comments section of my last essay if the conversation hadn’t turned, as it so often does, to my tone or style rather than the substance of my words. So it’s interesting now for me to ask, “Is it because my tone or style doesn’t reflect a very set and preconceived notion of what a film critic is supposed to be?” Is the problem really with my challenging the very idea?

I pose this question only after an email conversation with my ridiculously perceptive colleague Steven Boone whose work I deeply admire. Steve observed straight out that I don’t sound like a film critic. This hadn’t even occurred to me before. But it did strike me as simplistic to assume it all boils down to white hetero males having a problem with my viewpoint—after all, a huge portion don’t and there are quite a few women out there who do. The deeper issue is how exactly a person writing about movies is supposed to sound. This is about something much larger than seven dirty little words.

Nowadays, with all the new technology, anyone can make a movie. And similarly, anyone with access to the Web can be a film critic. The defining difference between those of us writing about movies that have an audience and those that don’t can be measured in the amount of sweat and tears spilled. Film geeks are learning that studying Goodfellas or parsing Farber isn’t adequate anymore (if it ever was). Scorsese’s encyclopedic knowledge of cinema wouldn’t have done him a bit of good if he’d never picked up a camera. Likewise, memorizing Kael isn’t going to make you a film critic if you favor knee-jerk reaction over the actual tough job of critical thinking—not just questioning the films but questioning oneself, calling into doubt your own perceptions, asking why it is you’re having the reaction you’re having, experiencing life both in and outside the cinema. You can’t be a film critic if you can’t see the forest for the trees.

It’s also interesting that after publishing at The House for nearly a year I still tell people I’m a writer. Only when they ask what kind of writing I do will I respond with, “Well, right now I’m mostly doing film criticism.” The reason I can’t bring myself to say the words “film critic” is the same reason I have trouble calling myself an “erotica author.” I’m still trying to figure out what all this means. I wrote a memoir because I happened to be in a mind-expanding relationship with a gay-for-pay stripper and found myself “taking notes” much like he was my college professor. Then I submitted and published my dissertation. Nothing more sensational than that. Likewise, as a film critic I’m really just a glorified car mechanic: the only difference between me and the rest of the drivers on the road is I happen to know what’s going on under the hood, can pinpoint exactly how it is I’m being manipulated and why that’s affecting me, and am able to translate that into words with some craftsmanship. But I guess this admission is a bit like revealing the wizard. No one, including me, finds it easy to face the man behind the curtain. Because where does that leave us—a population conditioned to look for guidance from on high rather than from inside? (Not to mention that, once you do this, a great many talented and hard-working people whose income depends on keeping the wizard firmly hidden lose their jobs.)

You see, the truth is a majority of us writers at The House don’t make our living solely through “film criticism,” and though we all agree that sucks since everyone wants to be paid to follow his/her passion, the upside is it forces us to engage with the world beyond film criticism, frees us up to reinvent the wheel. Film criticism is changing—who writes it and what it sounds like, mimicking moviemaking itself since the advent of DV, Final Cut Pro, and the Web. And either you stay one step ahead of the times or you fall victim to it. I’m always humbled reading Agee, Farber, and Kael—but I have no interest in being any of them even if I could. I’m a genderqueer chick, which is reflected in my own specific way of writing, my own POV. I happen to be interested in exploring cinema as it relates to the living, breathing world at large. The more academic “film as it relates solely to other film” approach just doesn’t excite me as much, is too confining. I venture to guess there’s going to be a hell of a lot of marginalized others like me speaking up in their own unique way in the years to come. In other words, I’m not trying to sound like Kael. I’m the tip of a different iceberg.

What this means for the future of the film critic is that it’s not enough anymore to permit minorities like Armond White, Rex Reed and Manohla Dargis into the reviewers tent. It’s time to expand and allow in those who also sound nothing like them. To use an election year analogy, you can’t pat yourself on the back for giving the Log Cabin Republicans a seat at the table if you simultaneously demand that the drag queens don pants to be heard. Why isn’t their style and tone equally valid as is? The Web has the power to shift the balance, the uncertainty of the outcome both wondrous and frightening.

Finally, let’s not forget that Agee, Farber, and Kael didn’t become Agee, Farber, and Kael by studying Agee, Farber, and Kael. They did it by going to the movies and doing the heavy lifting of critical thinking—engaging with self-doubt, blazing their own trails. The biggest tribute I can give these dynamic legends is not to try to resemble them, but to carry on their legacy by pushing the very boundaries of film criticism itself.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

One of the things I've always truly enjoyed about THSD, ever since it was conceived by MZS, was that it's like a party where everyone is invited.

When Matt and I talked once about the movies he likes to make, I remarked that they're made by someone who really likes people and is interested in them. He responded that it's funny, because often he likes many different kinds of people, and sometimes when they rub up against one another it causes a lot of hostility. But that's natural, I guess. When you're at a party, if someone is creeping you out, move on to the next person.

I am sure the readership has their favorite writers on THSD--when their name pops up on the byline, you say to yourself, "Oh, great! So-and-so has a new piece. I'm curious what they think of such-and-such film."

Lauren Wissot is one of those for me.

I'm surprised these two pieces have been controversial. I find them quite refreshing, candid and personal. Also, they provide a unique look at the role of critic and audience.

It's good to have fresh and original voices online.

As for straight white guys (including yours truly), I don't know if we need to feel threatened by diversity or a new opinion.

And as for the tone of THND, I think Keith Uhlich has been doing a fantastic job as editor-in-chief. I think it is continuing what MZS set out to do by inviting everyone and encouraging diversity. If that ruffles a few feathers, well, so be it.

JeremiahPosted by Jeremiah Kipp on 2008-09-16 15:11:00

It could be that I have no business posting here, since I am neither a film scholar or a film critic. I rarely even read movie reviews. I do read Lauren's, however, and felt compelled to write something after reading many of these posts. I also represent the movie-going public in a sense, as I will pay to see a film once in a while, and Lauren's take on these films are always thought-provoking.Using large words and alluding to arcane film critics and "proper" methods for criticism should have prevented me from posting, but then again, it only helped me want to clarify that the movie-going public (even a guy like me who had to grab a dictionary to read the comments sections of this blog) can tell when they are being handed a lemon at the box office. Hearing from those who write about films doesn't change that. Many of us regular movie-goers can also tell when someone tried pretty hard to make something decent. Those are the one, between effort and slop, that make our DVD list, or at least mine. Most of us, however, like films even if the critics said they sucked. We find the kernels in them that were good and we're thankful we don't have the education in film that would have made us hate it - if that makes sense. Without that education I can still like the 80s films I melted over when I was a kid.When it comes to Lauren's use of her personal life in her work, especially since it was an essay and not a review, I had no gripe. Most writers in this field, as it is in journalism, like to remain mysterious, though there are many readers that would like to know what drives them to make the decisions they make. I think Lauren's real life is perfectly acceptable in her essay, and getting a chance to read her thoughts is never a dull experience. It gets me to think outside of my own box. In my opinion, she takes the "tired" form of critical thing and gives it a nice strong cup of coffee.Posted by Patrick Whitehurst on 2008-09-14 20:29:00

Joan,

I guess the bottom line is a lot of my frustration comes from the cop-out aspect. Once again, I seem to be constantly sitting through films like "Traitor," with filmmakers so lazy they just "hire Arabs to play Arabs" and call it a day. How about having some Arabs behind the scenes, producers, consultants, whoever so that an Arab POV is pouring out of those actors' mouths? This just doesn't seem like that much to ask and would elevate the film immensely. It seems like the filmmakers just didn't care enough to try. I can take "bad filmmaking" if the filmmakers give it all they've got. This falls way, way short. And this seems to be getting worse every year.Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-13 00:24:00

To say people who just want sheer entertainment can't handle anything more than sheer entertainment is condescending.

Of course it is, but who is saying this? Has anyone deserving of respect actually said anything even close to this? Do you have any links or quotes?

Because movie people may be a lot of things, but they're not so stupid as to directly insult their target audiences. You keep saying you want movies to be smarter; many, many people do, although I would hesitate to say a majority does. I will repeat my earlier point: It's not that easy.

You think it is, having said, "But I don't understand why these filmmakers can't add more "vitamins" to those cash cows they put onscreen. It just doesn't seem that difficult to do, which is what bothers me." Again I'll say, if it were easy, they would be doing it already. If it were easy, we'd have hundreds of Shakespeares instead of just one. When you say things like "it really doesn't look that hard," you sound both ignorant and elitist: ignorant about the way movies are actually made, and the level of control a writer or a director actually has over his work, and elitist because if it's so easy for you, why can't it be easy for the people who are actually making the movies, too? They must not be as smart as you are.Posted by Joan on 2008-09-12 16:57:00

tray,

"No, he or she is not the movie-going public. They're members of it, but they're in the 99.9th percentile of that group as far as knowledge of movies is concerned."

By virtue of the fact that they paid eleven bucks to see a movie, that makes them part of the movie-going community. If they're in the "99.9th percentile" then they are still in the group. Filmmakers need to start reaching to include every single body who pays to see a film. To say people who just want sheer entertainment can't handle anything more than sheer entertainment is condescending.Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-12 13:14:00

I thought the original piece was silly. I'm sure you realize now that you didn't really need to mention the sex with the bodybuilder. But that's besides the point. The point is that you, clearly a resident of one or another cosmopolitan city, extrapolated from these two very unusual moviegoers to make a claim about the intelligence of the movie-going public at large. Do you really suppose that outside of whatever rarefied atmosphere you live in it's normal to meet bodybuilders with opinions on John Barrymore? Or managers of "houses of domination" (whatever they are) with encyclopedic knowledge of Soviet cinema? No, he or she is not the movie-going public. They're members of it, but they're in the 99.9th percentile of that group as far as knowledge of movies is concerned. That's just reality, however condescending it may sound. That isn't to say that we don't deserve better than the pap big studios, or for that matter little independent ones, give us, but the movie-going public isn't what you think it is.Posted by tray on 2008-09-12 07:20:00

I applaud the piece's honesty and bravery but the snark and overall contempt for the commenters--and therefore, internet community--is hard to get over. Pardon me if I sound a little like the worst parts of Ms. Wissot's essay(s), but this is something people writing for the internet need to understand: Do not get both upset by commenters (both rude ones and ones that simply disagree with you) and maintain a mocking, "I'm better than the internet" tone! It's a bad look. Take your readers seriously or don't.Posted by brandon on 2008-09-12 01:59:00

I'm flummoxed. Is it a huge faux pas to use the personal to discuss film? That's a bit limiting, to say the least. Is the problem that it was a sexual anecdote? If it were a story about her dogwalker, would that be less intrusive?

I agree with Marilyn, the problem with the original wasn't mentioning the bodybuilder. It's 2008, screw who you want. And I don't mind being told about it, either, as long as the anecdote fits with and supports the thesis. In this case, the story just wasn't very well integrated into the rather diffuse post.

But part of the point of a blog, to me, even an edited one like the House Next Door, is the ability to take ideas, whether fully or only partly formed, and shape them in a public forum.

And that's where, I have to say, I sympathize with Keith.

Now I am going to tiptoe away.Posted by Campaspe on 2008-09-12 01:28:00

Lauren, If you're worried about spending $11 for a film that will insult your intelligence, then choose more wisely. Just say no. I do.Posted by Marilyn on 2008-09-11 23:56:00

Just asking - if you tried to insert (pun possibly intended, depending on the scenario), some thought-provoking content in a dom/sub scene, would that cut that mood?

I'm only asking because I think there is room for a wide range of films, from those that are just plain and simple thrill rides (I still worship "The Last Action Hero," my first ever film roller coaster) to those that have a whole lot more to say. And, there's no reason to expect the same audience to want to see all of these possibilities, even though, as you say, and as we know, there have been huge hits with a lot of depth.

Making a movie costs a hell of a lot of money - making a movie that will get seen by more than a handful of people costs even more. As a result, artistic compromises are ridiculously necessary. And, in a collaborative artform, not everybody involved is going to be able to put forth the same level of dedication to a concept beyond the surface. There are a lot of reasons why popular movies often stink - the marvel is that popular movies are sometimes great.

I think your points are good about finding critics from a wide variety of backgrounds. There is much which can be learned from smart people who don't have a lot of interest in what has been orthodox opinion - there is the possibility of somebody finding something brand new to say about "Citizen Kane," for example. The key is that these people must be smart, and they must get the chance to be heard. I think The House Next Door is one of the best sources for finding these new voices, at least in my heavy blog-reading experience.Posted by Steve Pick on 2008-09-11 23:50:00

"But I don't understand why these filmmakers can't add more "vitamins" to those cash cows they put onscreen. It just doesn't seem that difficult to do, which is what bothers me."

William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" and "Which Lie Did I Tell" are terrific reads that go into a lot of detail on that very question. He lays out the competing needs of people involved in projects (maybe most particularly the kinds of roles that movie stars will play, and the kinds of arcs they need to have) and why that makes most hollywood movies the way they are.Posted by Maura on 2008-09-11 23:31:00

Matt Maul,

Sorry, Matt, I've been trying not to respond to what I agree with as I'm tag-teaming with Keith.

I think you do bring up another interesting point. I understand that filmmaking is a business, that the blockbusters are going to take up the majority of the screens around the country. That's a reality. But I don't understand why these filmmakers can't add more "vitamins" to those cash cows they put onscreen. It just doesn't seem that difficult to do, which is what bothers me. I don't think if the message in "Traitor" (I'm getting really sick of doing PR duty on this movie but it's a great example) were delivered with more intelligence, in plainspoken language without condescension, the guy who came for the action scenes would walk out of the theater confused. Yet the guy who came for the action scenes might also find something else to take away, might open his eyes to something new. I just don't think these aspects have to be mutually exclusive.Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-11 22:33:00

As an aside, this -

"Of recent, I was particularly impressed with her one-on-one interview with Malcolm McDowell, which I was on-hand to record. She asked terrific questions, and I could see McDowell was charmed by her attractiveness and intelligence both."

- reeks of condescension, IMO.Posted by John S on 2008-09-11 22:09:00

"To use another "fringeâ€ example, I get geeky about S&M, boxing, theater, film, and certain genres of music just about equally, and whenever I enter each of these cliques I try to cross-pollinate a bit, try to find common ground (which obviously backfires from time to time)."

Ah. Nicely said.

So folks, these pieces are manipulative, painful and sexually humiliating by design, not by accident. They are film criticism cross-pollinated with S&M. I didn';t get that at first.

On those terms, these pieces have not backfired at all. They';re brilliant. My only question remains: To what end? Armond White writes as a gay man with every word, but he writes to an end, which is what makes him great. Among other things, he has introduced male erotic response as a legitimate aesthetic for judging film. What is Wissot getting at here?Posted by John S on 2008-09-11 22:02:00

"I have to admit, I love those incompetent bastards just for making the attempt."

Joan, I love that last line. That's all I'm asking for. I don't need everyone to be Shakespeare, but if I pay my eleven bucks I want to feel like they at least were reaching higher, making the attempt, not preaching to the lowest common denominator movie-goer.

I'm gonna get crap for this, but I liked "The Scorpion King." I'm a fan of The Rock and it did exactly what it needed to do - tailor the script around his charming, self-deprecating personality and keep the action moving. Fine. I didn't feel condescended to. If "Traitor" is going to try to reach both audiences - those who want only action scenes and those who want to be challenged with a political message - then balls out do it! Don't get the butts in the theaters and then preach to the LCD. I need a director to reach higher than that.Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-11 21:52:00

Joan-

The ideas come out of the personalities and vice versa, I'd say. I encourage individual perspectives, and I think your background has come through in your writing to the benefit of the work.

I don't know how much clearer I can be in what I've said. I'm leaving this at that.Posted by Keith Uhlich on 2008-09-11 21:51:00

Lauren, for what it's worth, I enjoyed both of your posts.

AND...I did submit an on-topic comment to your first one. But since you didn't reply (sniff, sniff), I'll repeat it here.

Most of my buds are what many would consider part of the average "movie going public" who perhaps don't go looking for deep meaning in the films they see. In fact, when it comes to movies, they mock me as the one "who doesn't like ANYTHING."

HOWEVER (and I think this relates to your point), when I do engage them, they are surprisingly receptive to more in-depth discussions about storylines, themes, symbolism, etc. So, they are capable of seeing beyond car crashes and explosions.

And Lauren, at the risk of getting off topic, I'll add that sometimes it cuts both ways. I wrote a piece on Cloverfield a while back (I hear some groaning, so I won't link to it) that suggested the movie, while certainly "light,", contained an underlying theme of romantic loss and consciously compared the monster to the jilted young man's rage. In that case, most of the response I received (from "serious" movie-goers) skewered me for giving the FILM too much credit.Posted by Matt Maul on 2008-09-11 21:48:00

Sword fights communicate their own messages, don't they?

I haven't been particularly offended or interested in the course of the debate, though I do find some charm in the spectacle of the "you're just a player-hater" mode of argument making its way through Blogsylvania lately, from the Gawker Media sites to Pandagon to the last installment's "blog film criticism's white heterosexual men can't handle my truth because their puny genitals are too withered from disuse" comments, etc. For some reason, I like the moment when subterranean resentment breaks the surface of otherwise innocuous engagements.

That said, I, too, wish Lauren would produce some work in a less tendentious mode.Posted by Rasselas on 2008-09-11 21:35:00

Keith said: I would hope people see that every writer has a platform here because of who they are...

Well frak me. I thought THND was about great ideas, well expressed, not showcasing personalities. Maybe I'm misreading you, but my impression was that Matt gave me a shot writing up Torchwood on the strength of the (admittedly excessive) material I'd produced on Farscape. IOW, I knew something about the genre and had demonstrated I could write coherently and to the point. I'm nearly certain that decision had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a middle-aged mother of three living in a suburb of Phoenix, who once upon a time was a software geek. (I'm confident it would be very difficult for anyone to read my contributions to THND and discern even that much about me.)

I understand being upset that THND is being castigated in comments around the web, but you have to expect that kind of thing when you host a site that publishes opinion pieces and encourages comments. Maybe I missed something (again), but I didn't see anything all that horrible--this dust-up barely registers as a blip relative to raging flamewars I've witnessed. (Ross will recall toasting marshmallows.)

Anyway, your reaction seems to be, "No, no, you shouldn't be thinking that way, you shouldn't be saying these things," and I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd be saying that--so I will retreat again to the idea that I must still be missing something, because I just don't get your response at all.

Back on topic, Laura wrote: My beef is with the vast amount of filmmakers who don't care enough about their audience to even make the attempt to encompass all.

This is an elitist attitude. How do you know they don't care? Do you have them on video twirling their mustaches as they cackle about the latest brain-deadening opus they've foisted upon the public? The studios want to make money, period. Writers and directors presumably want to make their points, but they are also driven by that same need.

Drama is hard. If it were easy to make great plays (or movies), Shakespeare would be just another name in the pantheon of fabulous playwrights the English language has produced through the centuries. But it's so hard that just about the only pre-19th century English playwright we are aware of is Shakespeare. Why is that? He certainly wasn't the only guy writing plays at the time--they were churning them out back then, the same way we're churning out movies now, the same way the studios churned out new releases weekly back in the 1930's and '40s. What happened to all that stuff? The vast majority of it was crap, and has been forgotten.

Technological improvements don't translate into content improvements, and it's content that makes a play or a movie. Special effects and costuming look pretty but if we don't care about the characters and the story, so what? And characters and story are created by writers and presented by directors, and we're right back to that 90% of everything sucks rule. But do you honestly think that they think it's crap? Or do they think, "This will be kick-ass movie, it's going to be a blast."

Shakespeares are few and far between, haven't you noticed? If I had to nominate anyone working today for Shakespeare status, I'd point to Brad Bird. I have a hard time thinking of anyone else who consistently brings that mix of intelligence, heart, and humor to his work. It's not fair to ascribe petty motivations to everyone else because they're not as good. I'm sure they'd be elated to wrap their summer blockbusters around something thought-provoking (hey, it worked for Spider-Man 2 and Dark Knight, right?). IMO they don't often have that opportunity, and they do the best with what they have. I have to admit, I love those incompetent bastards just for making the attempt.Posted by Joan on 2008-09-11 21:35:00

these are the times when I'm much happier with my "burn everything" concept of thinking.

then again, maybe it comes from years of having to troll the bottom of the Weird Wide Web.Posted by John Lichman on 2008-09-11 21:34:00

"But a personal essay is my sacred ground. And it hurts to censor myself in this context."

I think you fell victim to a rookie writer's mistake - you mixed the personal with the professional and then got upset when people critiqued the personal and "missed" your professional point.

I read the original piece and have to concur that the editing and writing were not very good. I'm an editor and I would have asked, "What does this personal anecdote have to do with your thesis about the moviegoing public?" Yes, it's colorful to talk about sex and grabs attention, but saying that a bodybuilder is part of the moviegoing public without defining his point of view beyond your argument tells me nothing about "This idea of the general public as a mass of sheep who don't deserve to be challenged is an insulting myth." The fact that he talks about film doesn't mean that he does not belong to a general public that doesn't want to be challenged.

Beyond the chasms of logic that have to be leapt to make this connection, I do have a problem with what you consider the substance of your post. YOu've started down the slippery slope of trying to judge what is film slop and what is film gold. The definition tends to move depending on how deeply down the rabbit hole of film mania and film education you go. A fanboy's mania assures him that The Dark Knight is a phenomenal film of great artistic worth whereas a film professor might see that mania as the ravings of an uneducated fan. It is hard, the further up the continuum you go, to avoid condescension.

I think your dismissal of the artistic tastes of many filmgoers has started your ascent up the ladder of condescension. I used to say I had "guilty pleasures" in films, but no more. A pleasure is a pleasure and must appeal to some aesthetic sense, whether it is based on two years worth of filmgoing experience or 20 years.

Other people say, rather condescendingly, that they have very smart relatives who (can you believe it) really like to see Ron Howard films. That's the equivalent of some of my best friends are film idiots. It's meaningless.

If you want more films that speak to your taste, that's fine. You have a bully pulpit her, so use it wisely. But to say that the world is full of huddled masses yearning to breathe free (aka, see better movies) dismisses them as yokels who wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the face.Posted by Marilyn on 2008-09-11 21:16:00

Maura,

Thank you for getting back on topic. I agree that a "whole lot of people just want to have fun" at the movies, and I concur that there is nothing wrong with that. My point is that there's a way for filmmaking to offer entertainment and challenge at the same time, which is what Shakespeare did. Some people go to "Coriolanus" for the message and some for the sword fights. But Shakespeare was smart enough to provide for both camps. My beef is with the vast amount of filmmakers who don't care enough about their audience to even make the attempt to encompass all.

And can we please stay on topic now? Keith needs a rest from playing my defense attorney. Seriously.Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-11 20:52:00

Keith,

(My full response was eaten by Blogger, so you'll be spared the long version.)

You wrote: "Once a piece goes up ... I think it falls on me as an editor to openly defend the writer in question should the necessity arise."

Please help me understand how that is not blindly defending.Posted by Culture Snob on 2008-09-11 19:52:00

To bring it back to the topic, I think that you're half-right.

"This idea of the general public as a mass of sheep who don't deserve to be challenged is an insulting myth. I know this because I rarely talk film with film critics."

Certainly the divide isn't between film critics and the general public... but there is a divide between people who wish to be challenged and those who don't. I and everyone I know (not one hot bodybuilder among them, unfortunately) are the general public - and some people are interested in engaging with challenging texts of all kinds... and some people are interested solely in being entertained. It's the difference between people who walk satisfied out of an excellent film with a sad plot... and the one's who make a face and say "I hated it - it was *depressing*". There's nothing elitist about acknowledging that many (most?) moviegoers just want to have fun at the movies.Posted by Maura on 2008-09-11 19:18:00

Culture Snob-

I am not blindly defending Lauren. If you think I take this job so lightly you are very mistaken, and as for your supposition that the sentence broken down in your post could have been made better, I reply that, in the context of the piece, it made the right thematic and rhythmic sense to me.

Perfectly probable that another editor would have thought differently, which doesn't mean that one edit towers paramount over the other.Posted by Keith Uhlich on 2008-09-11 19:10:00

"Barring plaigiarism proved after the fact or other unforeseens, all the writers on this site have my support after their pieces go through my eyes and go live."

Blind public defense outside of plagiarism isn't the right thing to do. Sometimes we'd all do well to be honest and, with the perspective of distance, admit that something could have been better. There are specific things Wissot and her editor could have done to make these pieces stronger. (For all the complaints here about narcissism, feel free to call this pot black for linking to his own post.)

What's disheartening to me is that the author in this case does not acknowledge that perhaps, maybe, there might be a chance that a different approach to the topic could have been more effective.Posted by Culture Snob on 2008-09-11 18:23:00

Joan-

I would hope people see that every writer has a platform here because of who they are, and not Lauren exclusively. Once a piece goes up (as I said pretty much all of them with my editorial guidance, as these two articles were) then I think it falls on me as an editor to openly defend the writer in question should the necessity arise. I believe it did in this case.

I failed in this respect earlier in the year with an off-line exchange on Godfrey Cheshire's "Man on Borrowed Piano Wire" piece--I allowed a separate situation to color my response to a publicist about the article. I don't intend for this to happen again. Barring plaigiarism proved after the fact or other unforeseens, all the writers on this site have my support after their pieces go through my eyes and go live. To me, that's just the right thing to do.Posted by Keith Uhlich on 2008-09-11 18:05:00

I'm a late arrival to this kerfuffle, and so went back and read all the original posts and comments to see how the conversation originated and developed. "Film critic v movie-going audience" is a topic that I've given a lot of thought to recently, as I've found my enthusiasm to write criticism waning even as my desire to read criticism continues undiminished. We had a great conversation about the role of critics a couple of years ago here, remember?

Anyway: Wissot's points that the movie-going public is diverse and deserves quality are true, but so what? You can't just wish away the reality that it's a business.

While I agree with Lauren's larger points regarding film and criticism, I'll second Glenn's wish that she would write better. She reads as a very young writer who could use a stronger editor. "Surprising twists and turns"? Are there any other kind? "Surreal insanity"? I read all the comments and found neither, although I can see why Wissot was disappointed in the direction they went. "Penning the piece"? Really?

Keith, I read your defense of Wissot with interest, but you should consider that these two particular pieces give the impression that Wissot has a platform here because of who she is, not because of her ideas and how well she presents them. (This critique is limited to the "movie-going public" pieces only, as I have not read her reviews.)

Wissot says, "the tragedy is that my particular life isn't minutely as interesting as the larger picture." I agree, as did some others who commented, but she was the one who chose to frame her entire argument around her life. When commenters pushed back at the idea that the examples she was citing were not so representative of the "movie-going public", she was surprised they didn't get the point.

But it's Wissot who misses the point, as I said above: yes, her friends and acquaintances and of course she herself are all part of the movie-going public, but they only represent a tiny fraction of the market for which movies are produced. Do we "deserve" better? Of course we do, but since 90% of all creative works suck, we take what we can get and rejoice when something exceeds our expectations.Posted by Joan on 2008-09-11 17:41:00

Thanks, Keith. I realize in retrospect that I should have stood up for "House" more when a couple of my commenters talked smack about it, because I don't agree with them. I stand by what I wrote in the recently published "Cineaste" symposium: "'The House Next Door' is a great multi-writer site that manages to host a bunch of strong voices, although I'm not crazy about every single one of them. I suppose that's part of the point."

So, then: no, I'm not a fan of Lauren Wissot. I don't like the way she writes. I like the way she argues even less. But I'm not interested in silencing her. If I were interested in silencing her, I would most likely would have done what one director I won't name did when he didn't like my review of a film of his: complain directly to the editor. But that would have been slimy. Because trying to silence anyone is slimy. Better to engage, object, refute, with the best weapons one has at hand.

But then, the particular kind of direct engagement that's now splattered over, what, four blogs/websites by now, has the potential to ruffle feathers and hurt feelings in ways heretofore undreamed of. I'm sorry this is wreaking havoc on you, Keith, and this really is going to be the last time I chime in here. But as I say, I'm not trying to silence Wissot.

I just wish she would write better.

And with that, I duly step back.Posted by glenntkenny on 2008-09-11 15:16:00

I felt my comment addressed the issue raised in the initial piece. If anything, I feel my comment, while admittedly strongly disagreeing with Lauren, was directed towards the thinking behind the piece as opposed to anything personal.

If you felt it was personal, Lauren, I apologize. If it was too strongly worded, which I would agree with you that it is, then I apologize for that as well. I admit I can get a bit too cranky while commenting.

The issue of narcissism, though, can't be avoided as Lauren did include personal info in the original piece to back up her argument. And if we can't discuss its relevancy to her thesis or that it may not have been the best way to present her argument, then how exactly do we start talking about that piece? I am not judging her life, as I'm not in any position whatsoever to cast stones myself.

I have commented here before on several pieces, Lauren's included, ironically her "Juno" piece, that I felt were strong and made me think. I simply can't put this on the same level. I feel the issues I brought up in my comment had some legitimacy, do they not? Did it not raise questions that the piece was possibly making generalizations about film audiences that she based on a few people she knows? And that perhaps it was a little more complex than that?

I took as much exception to the thinking behind Godfrey Cheshire's "Man on Wire" pieces. And his personal background was just as irrelevant to me.

For me, it's not the writer. It's the ability of the writer to express an argument or thesis. I don't think Lauren is a bad writer at all, but felt this piece didn't warrant the serious discussion she feels it did, which is probably why I didn't comment on it in the first place.

That's my opinion. I'm sorry if it offends anyone. Is this not a site where ideas like the one in the original piece can be challenged and discussed?Posted by Steven Santos on 2008-09-11 15:09:00

To the readership:

I just published this comment on Lauren's personal blog as a response to two colleagues who've been involved in this discussion across several sites. I believe it is also applicable here.

And to jonah a.: I'm the one who provided the link to Amazon, as I typically do for House articles where books are mentioned, whether they are products of the article author (see Tom Stempel's "Understanding Screenwriting" columns) or otherwise. So direct your ire elsewhere...

To Filmbrain and Glenn-

I've done my best to stay out of this online discussion, but the exchanges over Lauren's pieces have made me too sick to my soul. I address you both personally because you're my friends, and because Lauren is too.

I understand that we see Lauren's work differently. If I may presume: I see a brave, direct, and unique voice; you both see self-absorption, an obsession with inapplicable details, and an old-hat desire to shock. I'm not here to argue perceptions, but the way this conversation has gone over several blogs has distressed me to no end.

I would no doubt feel differently (though I would hope, still, empathetically) if the experience of these published comments were entirely Lauren's. But I feel I've been dragged into the discussion in ways both explicit (The House Next Door's name taken in vain and lambasted in the comments section of Glenn's blog) and implicit (the constant questioning of Lauren's presence at The House Next Door as if she is an intruder rather than an invitee).

Lauren was brought on by Matt Seitz in the early days of the site to write a review of Lust, Caution. I'm not sure who contacted who, but Matt was very welcoming, as was I. Lauren's perspective was one that I hadn't before encountered and her experiences (sexual, cinephilic, etc) were ones that I thought would be interesting to apply to the world of film. She quickly became one of The House's most prolific and enthusiastic writers, and I've seen her grow significantly as a critic since her debut. Of recent, I was particularly impressed with her one-on-one interview with Malcolm McDowell, which I was on-hand to record. She asked terrific questions, and I could see McDowell was charmed by her attractiveness and intelligence both.

I've also visited the House of Domination Lauren works in (we recorded an as-yet-unpublished interview with Anna Biller, the director of Viva, at an adjoining club) and had chance to meet the Russian woman who she mentions in her initial piece, a fellow dominatrix colleague whose knowledge of Russian film is indeed encyclopedic.

Filmbrain, I think it was you who called into question Lauren's story about the bodybuilder she mentions in the first "Movie-Going Public." Having seen several facets of Lauren's life first-hand, I have no reason to doubt her, and I also don't believe that the reference was dropped flippantly, but was entirely relevant to the point she was making: that the movie-going public encompasses a vast array of people and perspectives, and - more humorously to me - that a fantastic afternoon tryst can so easily be spoiled over a disagreement about movie stars (personal intimacy and movie-love collide and crash as often as they harmonize).

This leads into my larger issue about Lauren's presence on The House. With few exceptions (e.g. Andrew Johnston's Mad Men recaps, which Matt edits, lays out, and publishes himself), all House articles go through my eyes before they are put up on the site. I therefore share some measure of responsibility for the site's publicly available content, whether I write the entry in question or not.

I worked on both of Lauren's articles, we e-mailed a time or two back and forth, and we both mutually approved the final versions. It was my idea to let the articles run without image support, in particular because I felt the words and ideas were strong enough on their own. I figured there would be some measure of disagreement to the piece's content, but I did not anticipate (as I almost never do) the sheer outrage and vitriol, the indignant bullying that emerged in the first article's wake.

Please don't misunderstand this as a knee-jerk accusation of sexism or straight-male myopia. I would hope both of you realize that I don't think of either of you that way, that you are both dear to me in ways that I feel I have expressed both in print and in person. (Lauren is also a friend and she will have a berth at The House for as long as she wants, with all the resultant commentary that comes with the gig - the funny thing in all this, for me, is that she's proven to have a much thicker skin for criticism of her work than I do.)

If our friendship and my word means anything in this context, I would like to ask you both to please step back from this situation and to also, in the future, consider my own advocacy for Lauren's work before responding to it. But this current discussion has gone as far as it can reasonably go, and it is wreaking havoc on me personally to see a writer and a friend I respect deeply being continuously raked over the coals by two who I love also.

For what it's worth.

Keith UhlichPosted by Keith Uhlich on 2008-09-11 14:10:00

"Whether you think I'm being 'narcissistic' or 'candid' isn't going to be resolved."

Well, actually, Lauren, it IS resolved. Santos thinks you're being narcissistic. He came out and said so.

That's the kind of laser-sharp writing that makes you such a pleasure to read. "Dynamic legends," indeed!

You were right in the first graf, Laurenâ€”it is hilarious. All of it.Posted by glenntkenny on 2008-09-11 13:55:00

This is starting to resemble the "Juno" debate in which the two camps seemed to be discussing completely different movies. What Steven Santos sees as "self-congratulation" and "self-victimization" I see as candor. Steven thinks I'm trying to be unique and I think I'm trying to say that there are tons of others like me. Etc.

Can we maybe get past this and focus on the interesting stuff? Whether you think I'm being "narcissistic" or "candid" isn't going to be resolved. We need to agree to disagree and move onto other issues.

Does anyone have opinions on the the role of the audience? The role of the film critic? Can we engage on the theses instead?Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-09-11 13:23:00

Lauren, perhaps, if you spent more time on the thesis you were presenting instead of stopping to add self-congratulatory info that adds nothing to it, maybe it would have been presented a lot more coherently.

This follow-up piece seems to about little more than your self-victimization because some commenters took exception to your writing. Personally, it didn't offend me in the slightest but I thought it was laughable and narcissistic.

You think you're bringing a unique voice to the table simply because of your personal background. I'd prefer to see that uniqueness show itself in the arguments and thoughts as opposed to revealing details of your personal life, which I find pretty lazy.

Does your dominatrix career allow you to legitimately claim originality in your voice? Some of the most boring people I've met are the ones who convinced themselves they're different and unique.

How different is this from (and sorry to be injecting politics so soon after those partisan hackery series on the DNC and RNC) the notion of voting for Sarah Palin for being a woman or Barack Obama for being black? Sorry, but I look for substance. You can be genderqueer all you want. More power to you. I just don't care. Give me something to think about in your writing.

What bothers me more is that you thought a thesis about the moviegoing public was properly backed up based on your narrow view of the world. We all have different experiences and different perceptions as to what makes up that public. But, I don't know how to go about writing about that without making sweeping generalizations that are often wrong and rely on preconceived notions and stereotypes or even accepting a reversal of those stereotypes as truth.

It's as arrogant as when Armond White consistently claims some filmmakers are elitist who don't understand "regular people" as well as White does. Well, anyone who claims they have an idea of how "regular people" think about movies don't know shit.

It's not that your thesis was wrong, Lauren. I know people who want to be challenged and others who don't. And there's really no way to guess who falls into which camp based on their background. I also don't think filmmakers should make their films based on guessing how the audience will react because that leads to boring, unoriginal movies.

Perhaps the complexity of this issue would have been a better place to start with the discussion instead of the tunnel vision represented in the original piece that was only exacerbated by the references to your personal life which add nothing to the argument and only seem to exist to demonstrate how "different" you are while presenting arguments which are undercooked which, especially these days, is very unoriginal in film criticism.Posted by Steven Santos on 2008-09-11 12:16:00

I did my best to stay on-topic, and found your definition of the moviegoing public incredibly narrow and vague. Happy now?Posted by Steve Macfarlane on 2008-09-11 06:04:00

Lauren. Sweetie, you didn't shock anyone by writing "too gay". A real dyed in the wool gay fellow would've responded in a quick and cold mifune type fashion, cutting down detractors with a stinging quip. Not by writing another hilariously shallow rant where you pause every two paragraphs to remind the audience how unique of a snowflake you are. The chortle of the plugging of your memoir is so too good to be true that I would suspect you were an epic troll, if not for the hyperlink to amazon.

I'm certain you will quickly dismiss me as a "Log Cabin Republican" but I would like to add that beyond the bitchiness, I sort of adore you. You strike me as a counter-culture version of the David Brent/Michael Scott character from the office. The mental image of a near 40 year old sex worker conducting sock puppet attacks is humanizing in its sadness. I would tivo the shit out of a tv show like that.